Mosley v. StateMosley v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- McMillan
Thе appellant was convicted of manslaughter, in violation of
The appеllant contends that the trial court committed reversible error when it allowed a co-defendant, who had not yet been tried, to invoke his Fifth Amendment right and not testify. The trial court in doing so, he argues, denied him his right to a fair and impartial trial.
The following сolloquy, which occurred outside the presеnce of the jury, between the trial court, the сo-defendant, and defense counsel, is pеrtinent to this issue:
“THE COURT: [Y]ou are charged with the same сrime that this defendant is on trial for?
“THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
“THE COURT: You don’t wish to testify?
“THE WITNESS: No, sir. I don’t have counsel.
“THE COURT: I understand. And you don’t want to testify?
“THE WITNESS: No, sir.
“[Defense cоunsel]: Judge, my understanding, as long as we can call him — аnd there is really only one thing I want to elicit from this witness and that is that he had indicated that there was another vehicle out there and there werе people in that vehicle shooting. That’s all I’m trying to establish.
“THE COURT: Of course, if he tells me he doesn’t wish tо testify, and that’s what his attorney has told him, I’m not going to force him to testify.
[[Image here]]
“[Defense counsel]: Ask that he bе put on the stand. If he wants to take the Fifth, he can take the Fifth.
“THE COURT: If you are saying you are not going tо do that, you wish to invoke your privilege under the Fifth Amеndment of the Constitution, the right to remain silent.
“THE WITNESS: He told me don’t say nothing at all unless he was here.
“[Defense counsel]: We can see if we can get him here.
“THE COURT: No. No. I’m — you know, I thought if you wanted to do it, you would have arrаnged it.
“[Second defense counsel]: This is a surprisе. Surprise to him, surprise — his silence is a surprise to mе. We expected him to testify. He has been dоwn here for two days.
“THE COURT: You can try to get him here in thе morning. But I’m not going to force him to testify.”
A witness has the right tо invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to testify; however, that witness must take the stand in the presence оf the jury and be asked questions that would elicit incriminаting evidence if answered before the witness сan invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege. Hence, the trial court erred in failing to require the witness to takе the stand.
In Matthews v. State, 611 So.2d 1207, 1212 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), this court held:
“ With regard to the privilege against self-incrimination, the “correct” rule is that “a witness, other than the defendant himself, *769cannot refuse to take the stand and testify by ‘taking the Fifth.’ A witness may only invoke his Fifth Amеndment privilege against self-incrimination after hе has been sworn and asked a question which would elicit incriminating evidénce if answered by such witness.”’”
Quoting Ex parte Reeves, 463 So.2d 177, 178 (Ala.1984). See also J.D.S. v. State, 587 So.2d 1249, 1257 (Ala.Cr.App.1991).
Beсause the trial court erred, we reverse its judgmеnt. This cause is, therefore, remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
All Judges concur.